Biomass with CO 2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS): The Way Forward For Europe

Abstract

Why Europe Needs to Go Carbon-Negative

More Powerful Technologies are now Needed to Keep Global Warming below 2°C

In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) stated that in order to keep global warming below 2°C and avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change, GHG emissions must be reduced by 50–85% by 2050–and peak no later than 2015.¹

More recent research, however, indicates that even these findings were too optimistic^2,3 and the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) now warns that “we are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere.”⁴ This was echoed by the IEA (International Energy Agency) in its World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing.”⁵

Bio-CCS: The Only Large-Scale Technology that can Remove CO₂ from the Atmosphere

In short, there is now an urgent need for carbon-negative solutions, i.e., systems that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Indeed, Bio-CCS—the combination of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) with sustainable biomass conversion—is the only large-scale technology that can achieve net negative emissions (in addition to any emissions reductions achieved by replacing fossil fuels with that biomass). This has already been recognized at an international level, e.g., in the IPCC's Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation⁶ and in the Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage in Industrial Applications jointly published by the IEA and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).⁷

Editor's Note:

This Industry Report presents excerpts from a document prepared on behalf of the ZEP and EBTP. Key conclusions are presented in Table 1. The complete report is available at www.biofuelstp.eu/bio-ccs-jtf.html. The information and views contained in this document are the collective view of the ZEP Advisory Council and the EBTP Steering Committee and not of individual members or of the European Commission. They also do not necessarily represent the views of Industrial Biotechnology journal, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. publishers, or their affiliates. Furthermore, none of the above organizations or companies, nor any persons acting on their behalf, is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained in this publication.

Table 1.

Key Conclusions

• Recent research indicates that more powerful technologies are now needed to keep global warming below 2°C^a —and avoid irreversible climate change.

• There is therefore an urgent need for carbon-negative solutions such as Bio-CCS—the only large-scale technology that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

• Use of biofuels and bioenergy is steadily increasing in the European Union (EU) due to targets for renewable energy sources and certain biofuels production routes could provide “low-hanging fruits” for early, low-cost CCS deployment.

• A recent study^b indicated that, globally, Bio-CCS could remove 10 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year by 2050 using available sustainable biomass–equivalent to a third of all current global energy-related emissions. In Europe, Bio-CCS could remove 800 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year by 2050 using available sustainable biomass—equivalent to over 50% of current emissions from the EU power sector. This is in addition to any emissions reductions achieved by replacing fossil fuels with that biomass.

• Bio-CCS could ultimately result in industry sectors whose overall emissions are below zero, which could then offset emissions in other sectors where reductions are more difficult to attain.

THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS ARE THEREFORE URGENTLY REQUIRED AT EU LEVEL:

• As for other low-carbon technologies, establish economic incentives to enable the large-scale deployment of Bio-CCS–in particular, reward negative emissions via the capture and storage of biogenic CO2 under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, in the same way as for fossil CCS.

• Identify and incentivize the clustering of small-scale biogenic emission sources with other emission sources in order to achieve economies of scale for CO2 transport and storage.

• Undertake R&D to determine the costs of the various Bio-CCS routes, including additional costs induced by corrosion and other technology challenges when co-firing with high biomass percentages in existing boilers.

• Establish dedicated funding for R&D and pilot projects to further develop and prove advanced technologies.

• Address issues specific to Bio-CCS deployment (e.g, accelerate deployment of advanced biomass conversion processes) and establish an EU roadmap towards 2050.

• In addition, establish additional non-ETS measures to enable EU CCS demonstration projects to take Final Investment Decision (FID) and provide security for long-term investment.

Above 1990 levels, as advised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

IEA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Programme.

Bio-CCS has already entered the European policy debate: the EU Energy Roadmap 2050⁸ not only confirms that “For all fossil fuels, Carbon Capture and Storage will have to be applied from around 2030 onwards in the power sector in order to reach decarbonization targets” (80–85% decarbonization overall by 2050), it also recognizes that CCS “combined with biomass could deliver ‘carbon negative’ values.”

The EBTP/ZEP Joint Taskforce Bio-CCS: Uniting High-Level European Stakeholders

Yet Bio-CCS is, to a large extent, an unexplored avenue of action, with a number of complex questions to be analyzed and answered. In 2011, the European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBTP) and the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants—known as the Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP)—therefore set up a Joint Taskforce (JTF) Bio-CCS in order to guide and accelerate this vital work and ensure its place within EU policy and R&D priorities; Bellona Europa—a member of both ZEP and EBTP—runs the JTF Bio-CCS Secretariat.

The JTF Bio-CCS works in a similar way to its mother platforms in bringing together high-level stakeholders and experts from relevant industries, research and civil society in order to identify the most effective and appropriate means of developing and deploying Bio-CCS technologies.

CO₂ Capture and Storage

CCS Could Provide almost 20% of Global Emission Cuts Required by 2050

CO2 Capture and Storage describes a technological process by which at least 90% of CO2 emissions is captured from large stationary sources (e.g., fossil fuel-fired power plants, heavy industry), transported to a suitable storage site, then stored in geological formations—safely and permanently—deep underground (at least 700 m and up to 5,000 m).

The IEA confirms that “The scale of potential future deployment of CCS is enormous, spanning manufacturing, power generation and hydrocarbon extraction worldwide.” Indeed, it is the single biggest lever for reducing CO2 emissions—providing almost 20% of the global cuts required by 2050. The critical role of CCS in meeting EU climate targets is therefore indisputable—as confirmed by the EU Energy Roadmap 2050—while the IEA estimates that the costs of achieving global climate objectives without CCS would be over 70% higher.

The result: Europe will not only enjoy a climate-friendly economy, but new industrial growth—creating jobs and boosting competitiveness—fuelled by a diverse and reliable energy supply.

Biomass Feedstocks

Biomass use for Energy is Steadily Increasing in the Eu and Beyond

Biofuels offset CO2 emissions from fossil transportation fuels in the same way biomass can offset emissions from fossil fuels in other applications, such as energy and heat production. Most biofuels are suitable for use in existing infrastructures and prime movers, such as biomethane, bioSNG and biomass-based synthetic diesel (Biomass to Liquid or BtL).

A wide range of biomass feedstock is available worldwide for biofuel and bioenergy production, such as energy crops (e.g., miscanthus, jatropha, short-rotation copice); wastes (e.g., waste oils, food processing wastes); agricultural residues (e.g., straw, corn stover); forestry residues; and novel feedstocks (e.g., algae).

In 2008, global bioenergy use was composed primarily of solid biomass (46.9 EJ); municipal solid waste (MSW) used for heat and CHP (combined heat and power) (0.58 EJ); and biogas (secondary energy) for electricity and CHP (0.41 EJ), and heating (0.33 EJ). The contribution of ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels (e.g., ethers) used in the transport sector amounted to 1.9 EJ in secondary energy terms.⁹ In absolute terms, usage has grown steadily over the last 40 years and by 2009 biomass accounted for ∼10% (50 EJ)⁹ of the annual global TPES (total primary energy supply). The IEA projects that the primary bioenergy share of the global TPES will increase to ∼160 EJ by 2050, providing ∼24% of TPES compared to 10% today. Around 60 EJ of this would be needed for transport fuels production, with another 100 EJ (i.e., 5 billion to 7 billion dry tonnes of biomass) required to provide electricity and heat for the residential sector, industry and other sectors.¹⁰

The bioenergy share of EU TPES is relatively small but growing, mainly driven by EU incentives for renewable energy sources (RES). The 2020 target of 10% RES for the transport sector set down in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED)¹¹ is expected to be composed almost entirely of biofuels. In 2020, biomass is assumed to contribute to ∼11% of total EU final energy consumption and ∼56% of total final renewable energy consumption, as well as ∼53% of the additional effort required to reach 20% RES in the EU in 2020, based on the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) of the 27 EU Member States.¹²

Bio-CCS Technology Routes

Several routes are suitable for the conversion of biomass into final energy products or chemicals in combination with CCS. These can be divided into biochemical biofuels production, thermo-chemical production of biofuels and biochemicals, and biomass combustion for the production of electricity and/or heat.

A significant amount of the carbon present in the feedstock typically ends up in biofuels or biochemicals, resulting in smaller CO2 streams compared to electricity generation. However, the impact of CO2 capture on overall process yields is usually much smaller in the case of biofuels or biochemicals production. The CO2 can either be easily separated, or in some cases, the fuel production process itself requires separation to ensure that downstream synthesis processes work properly.

Conventional biofuels from sugar/starch crops currently represent the largest capacity of all biofuel/biochemicals production routes, while scale-up efforts are ongoing for thermo-chemical production routes.

Biochemical Production of Biofuels

Biomethane

Fermentation or anaerobic digestion is a process whereby organic material is broken down in several steps by different microorganisms. Most organic raw materials can be used as feedstock as long as they are biologically degradable—including animal, human, food, and organic waste streams and green crops (but not woody feedstock). Process products include biogas (containing 45–70% CH4 and 25–45% CO2 with trace amounts of sulphurous components) and a solid fraction called digestate.

Biogas can be upgraded to biomethane by separating CO2 and removing sulphurous components and results in properties comparable to natural gas and facilitates grid injection. CO2 separation is a commercially proven technology for the production of biomethane, but faces certain challenges for purposes of CCS, such as seasonal feedstock variability and a relatively small CO2 stream. The economic feasibility of biomethane production with CCS is governed by relatively small output capacities up to 15 MW.

Bioethanol

During ethanol fermentation, sugars from conventional biofuel feedstocks (e.g., sugar cane/beet, the starch part of corn) are fermented into ethanol and CO2. Two-thirds of the carbon contained in the sugars ends up in the ethanol; the remaining third forms near-pure CO2. The CO2 stream can then be separated via a gas liquid separation, while the ethanol/water mixture is typically separated via distillation. A typical ethanol plant in the U.S. produces ∼200 million liters per year, which corresponds to a pure CO2 stream of 140,000 tonnes per year.

Lignocellulosic feedstocks can also be used for ethanol production, although these require a pretreatment step to isolate the cellulose from the lignin. Subsequent chemical or enzymatic hydrolysis converts complex cellulose chains into simple sugars that can be fermented into ethanol. Around 62% of the carbon present in the feedstock ends up in the lignin stream, 25% in the ethanol product and half of that in the pure CO2 stream. Lignin can be used for under-firing during the ethanol/water distillation or as fuel for a CHP unit, although post-combustion CO2 capture should be added to these processes to increase significantly the CO2 capture potential.

Thermo-Chemical Production of Biofuels and Biochemicals

During thermo-chemical conversion, lignocellulosic/non-edible feedstocks are dried and ground, and subsequently gasified with oxygen and/or steam. The product gas from gasification is then cleaned and processed to form a so-called synthesis gas, which can be used in commercially available synthesis processes to form fuels and chemicals:

• Hydrogen (and further synthesis into ammonia and urea)

• Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) via methanation

• Diesel, gasoline and kerosene (jet fuel) via fuel synthesis (e.g., Fischer-Tropsch) and refining (often described as Biomass-to-Liquid or BtL)

• Methanol synthesis and upgrading to DME (dimethyl ether, a fuel additive) and gasoline; but also plastics, formaldehyde, and acetic acid.

Biomass Combustion for Electricity and/or Heat Production

Biomass co-firing

There are several technical routes for biomass co-firing which may be divided into indirect and direct. Indirect co-firing relies on the dedicated conversion of biomass in a fluidized bed gasifier. This produces a combustible gas with a Low Calorific Value (LCV) that can be injected into an existing boiler. During direct co-firing, biomass is blended with coal, milled, and transported to the burners in the boiler. Biomass can also be ground in a dedicated biomass mill or modified coal mill. The ground biomass can be blended with pulverized coal and fed to the burners, or fed via a dedicated biomass burner, or simply injected into the boiler.

100% biomass combustion in CHP plants and CFB boilers

100% biomass combustion occurs in certain, smaller modified pulverized coal boilers and could also be facilitated in existing, medium-sized CHP plants fired with coal or lignite. The latter are theoretically suited to fire up to 100% biomass and are generally based on CFB technology. CFB boilers are usually smaller than large utility boilers–ranging from 50 to 500 MW–more flexible regarding fuels and typically located in close proximity to urban areas or industrial facilities in order to supply heat. The above-mentioned technologies could also be converted to allow 100% biomass oxy-fuel firing.

Biomethane/bio-SNG for power/heat production

Biomethane obtained from fermentation and upgraded by CO2 separation or gasification-based bio-SNG could be used as fuel in gas-fired combined cycle power plants (NGCCs) or CHP plants. For gas-fired applications, there are in principle no co-firing ratio limitations and biomethane/bioSNG can be co-fired at any rate between 0 and 100%. There are also no fundamental restrictions to applying “conventional” post-combustion CO2 capture technologies in these power plants (apart from economies of scale for CHP).

BIGCC

Gasification of biomass allows the utilization of a variety of biomass feedstocks and, in theory, the use of pre-combustion CO2 capture technologies that are also proposed for IGCC power plants. Technical improvements to future biomass-based IGCC (BIGCC) plants can therefore build on the experience and further development of gasification technology in the (petro)chemical sectors which produce base chemicals and transport fuels (e.g., FT diesel).

Bio-CCS in Industrial Applications

Fuel substitution

Large industrial operations could present potential Bio-CCS opportunities where a local heat or power requirement exists–particularly in industrial clusters where CCS infrastructure can be shared, ensuring continuity and efficiency of operation. Further synergies may be possible where systems are combined or shared, such as the application of low-grade heat to pre-dry biomass, reducing the moisture content and improving the energy density of the feedstock.

The use of biomass in industry to replace fossil fuels includes a variety of potential applications: small- and medium-scale heat and power for industrial and domestic use (<50 MW); as a fuel substitute in cement kilns; in the refining and chemicals industries as synthesis gas from gasification or pyrolysis oil; and via injection in blast furnace steel and iron-making.

Pulp and paper

In the pulp and paper industry, the majority of emissions originate from biogenic sources, since most of the on-site processes utilize biomass as a raw material. Although total site emissions are significant, they are scattered among different stacks–with the recovery boiler usually the largest source by far. Other sources are the lime kiln, bark boiler and possibly other on-site heat/power production. As for other industries, the potential for process integration could reduce the energy penalty from CCS, and associated capture costs, substantially. However, the size of single sources, as well as heavily integrated processes on modern pulp and paper mills, pose challenges in applying CCS to existing installations. Layout restrictions and impurities in the flue gas also pose a challenge. Nevertheless, as aging recovery boilers are replaced in the future, a window of opportunity could open for the gasification of black liquor which entails more feasible capture options. (Black liquor is a liquid process stream in chemical pulping processes which contains cooking chemicals and dissolved lignin. In a recovery boiler, cooking chemicals are recovered to be re-used in the process and lignin is burned to produce power and heat for the site.)

Bio-CCS Potentials in 2030 and 2050

Negative Emissions are Additional to any Abatement from Replacing Fossil Fuels with Biomass

In a recent report by the IEA GHG,¹³ various potentials were assessed, including a first assessment of the global and European (OECD Europe) “technical potential” for Bio-CCS in the power and (bio)fuel production sectors (Table 2). This includes technologies for co-firing and co-gasification of biomass and coal, as well as those fed solely with biomass feedstock.

Table 2.

Overview of Global and OECD Europe's Technical Potential for Various Bio-CCS Technologies in 2030 and 2050

	TECHNICAL POTENTIAL IN NET NEGATIVE GHG EMISSIONS
	(GT CO₂-EQUIVALENT)
BIO-CCS TECHNOLOGY^a	Global^b		OECD Europe^c
Electricity generation with CCS	2030	2050	2030	2050
Co-firing in coal-fired power plant (post- pre-, oxy-fuel combustion)	−4.3	−9.9	−0.3	−0.7
Dedicated combustion and gasification of biomass (post-, pre-, oxy-fuel)	−5.7	−10.4	−0.5	−0.8
BIOFUELS PRODUCTION WITH CCS
Bio-ethanol (lignocellulosic biomass)	−0.5	−1.1	−0.04	−0.1
Synthetic biofuels via thermo-chemical processes	−3.3	−5.8	−0.3	−0.4

The technical potentials shown in Table 2 are calculated under the assumption that all available biomass is allocated to one specific Bio-CCS route at a time. The results for the various Bio-CCS technologies thus cannot be totaled. The results presented here reflect a limited set of Bio-CCS technologies and are not exhaustive. Work is currently being carried out by the IEA GHG to estimate the potential for Bio-CCS technologies where biogas is combined with CCS.

The global supply of biomass feedstock is assumed to be equal for all selected Bio-CCS technologies: 73 and 126 EJ/yr in 2030 and 2050, respectively.

The potential supply of biomass feedstock from OECD Europe is assumed to be equal for all selected Bio-CCS technologies: 5.8 and 9.6 EJ/yr in 2030 and 2050, respectively.

It should be noted that 1 megatonne (1 million tonnes, Mt] of negative emissions (carbon-negative) is not the same as 1 Mt of emission reductions—emission reductions always depend on a reference scenario. For example, a large coal-fired power plant emits 5 Mt of CO2 per year. If it is replaced by a low-carbon technology that still emits 1 Mt per year, then an emission reduction of (5-1 =) 4 Mt is achieved. Bio-CCS technologies may replace fossil-fuel power plants and deliver negative emissions by storing CO2 originating from biomass. If, in this example, the coal-fired power plant is replaced by a Bio-CCS power plant that delivers 4 Mt of negative emissions, then the total emission reduction achieved is (5+4 =) 9 Mt.

In other words, carbon-negative=carbon abatement only if Bio-CCS replaces zero-emission technologies. If it replaces carbon-emitting technologies, the abatement of their emissions is then added for the total carbon abatement.

Globally, Bio-CCS could remove 10 Gigatonnes of CO₂ from the Atmosphere Every Year by 2050

The results of the IEA GHG study indicate a large global technical potential for Bio-CCS: a removal of ∼10 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year by 2050—equivalent to around a third of all current energy-related CO2 emissions worldwide.

As in the EU, this technical potential is, in most regions, mainly limited by the supply of sustainable biomass as there is likely to be sufficient CO2 storage capacity. In the biofuel routes, a relatively small fraction of CO2 is captured, therefore a relatively small storage capacity is required. In the 100% biomass-fired routes for power generation, less storage capacity is required compared to co-firing routes in order to realize the full carbon-negative potential.

In Europe, Bio-CCS could remove 800 Mt of CO₂ from the Atmosphere Every Year by 2050

While the market for biomass is assumed to be global, this report focuses on Bio-CCS potentials based on projected available biomass in (OECD) Europe. According to the IEA GHG study, Bio-CCS could remove 800 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year by 2050–equivalent to more than half of all current EU energy-related emissions.

Economic Factors

Costs for the large-scale deployment of Bio-CCS technologies have not yet been comprehensively assessed, either for Europe or globally. Given the substantial differences between the various technology routes, a generalized description would not be appropriate and more detailed work is needed. Nevertheless, a number of observations can be made.

Biofuels Production with CCS is a key “Low-Hanging Fruit” for CCS Deployment

Several biofuels production routes, notably bioethanol and FT synfuels production, have a near-pure CO2 stream (CO2 separation is already part of the production processes, with very low impact on thermal efficiency), providing CCS deployment options with very low additional costs once units reach a certain scale, or can be clustered in terms of infrastructure. Indeed, the IEA Technology Roadmap for CCS in Industrial Applications¹⁴ highlights biofuels production with CCS as one of the key “low-hanging fruits” for CCS deployment.

While no comprehensive cost calculations are available for biofuels production with CCS, data from ADM¹⁵ in the US—an early mover in industrial-scale bioethanol production with CCS—indicates that the cost per tonne of CO2 captured, transported, and stored is lower than for early movers in electricity production with CCS.¹⁶ The US does not currently have a CO2 pricing system, but the ADM project receives subsidies from the Department of Energy (DoE) to inject 2.5 Mt of CO2 over three years.¹⁷

Without more in-depth cost analyses, it is premature to identify biofuels with CCS as the low-hanging fruit for Bio-CCS, based on the costs of a single project with a limited time-span. Yet the ADM project indicates that for certain biofuels production routes, CCS deployment could be commercialized in the EU at a significantly lower Emissions Unit Allowance (EUA) price than for electricity production, assuming that the EU ETS—or other future incentivizing mechanisms—reward emissions below the baseline.

Biomass Co-Firing at Moderate Percentages can be Flexibly Applied

ZEP has recently undertaken a ground-breaking study on the costs of CO2 capture,¹⁸ transport,¹⁹ and storage,²⁰ with resulting integrated CCS value chains presented in a summary report.²¹ This showed that following a successful demonstration, the current suite of CCS technologies will be cost-competitive with the full range of low-carbon power options. The study focused on fossil fuel power plants and did not cover CCS applications where biomass is used as a feedstock. While this will be covered in future updates, it is possible to make some general comments.

Looking at the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), Bio-CCS is generally more expensive than fossil CCS due to the relatively higher cost of biomass. However, co-firing biomass with coal or lignite at moderate percentages (at least up to 10%) is not expected to require additional investment in CCS equipment compared to CCS for coal or lignite only. Generally speaking, it is therefore the cost of the biomass fuel which causes variations in the costs of deploying CCS.

For higher co-firing rates and dedicated biomass combustion, the relatively lower energy content per volume of biomass feedstock compared to coal potentially leads to efficiency penalties and higher costs.

While the composition of biomass fuels is variable, their generally higher alkaline content compared to coal can also lead to ash deposition and corrosion when co-firing in existing boilers, which will drive up costs. More data and research is needed on these issues, as well as other potential technological challenges.

The (co-)firing of biomethane or bioSNG in NGCCs to replace natural gas is not expected to result in any additional costs when NGCCs are equipped with CCS.

Accelerating Deployment

A key prerequisite is the maturation and commercialization of CCS and advanced, sustainable biofuels production. Bio-CCS is already being carried out on an industrial scale, but not in Europe, mainly because negative emissions are not rewarded in the EU ETS. Dedicated funding for pilot projects to prove advanced technologies and close any knowledge gaps is also urgently required.

Take Urgent Action at Eu/Member State Level to Support CCS Demonstration Projects

In recognition of CCS as a critical low-carbon energy technology, the EU has moved rapidly from development to demonstration on the road to wide deployment: billions of euros have been invested or pledged by industry, funding has been achieved for a CCS demonstration programme and an EU-wide legal framework for CO2 storage²² has been established. As importantly, the ZEP cost reports²³ now provide confidence that following a successful demonstration, the current suite of CCS technologies will be cost-competitive with the full range of low-carbon power options.

In short, there is no doubt that CCS can deliver, as confirmed by international developments where FID has already been taken on large-scale demonstration projects in Australia, Canada, and the US However, while confidence in the technology remains high, the fall in the EUA price—from ∼€30 per tonne in 2008 to ∼€8 today—could have a severe impact on both CCS demonstration and deployment: not only is significantly less funding available for the “NER 300,” but the long-term business case for CCS has been seriously undermined. [In 2008, the EU agreed to set aside 300 million Emission Unit Allowances from the New Entrant Reserve under the EU ETS Directive to demonstrate CCS and innovative renewable energy technologies.]

It means CCS has now reached a “tipping point” in Europe and urgent action is needed at EU and Member State level to counteract these developments. As the IEA has declared, “Deploying CCS requires policy action; it is not something the market will do on its own.” The following actions are therefore urgently required:

• Strengthen the EUA price

• Establish additional economic measures at Member State/EU level to enable demonstrate projects to take FID

• Additional financial support from Member States is also vital

• Provide storage site operators with greater clarity on the precise modalities for site hand-over and financial security at Member State level and accelerate the validation of storage permits.

Accelerate RD&D for Sustainable Advanced Biofuels

There is considerable potential for the production of advanced biofuels, which are expected to be superior to conventional biofuels in terms of GHG reductions, land use requirements, and competition for land, food, fiber and water.²⁴ The main reason this has not yet taken up speed is that the conversion technologies needed to reduce the costs of the value chain are still approaching wide-scale deployment.

Much work therefore needs to be done to improve advanced biofuel technology pathways in order to achieve economic feasibility and enhance the performance and reliability of conversion processes. This requires intensive RD&D [research, development, and deployment] activities, in particular:

• Investments in agricultural production and infrastructure improvements which promote rural development and significantly improve the framework for an advanced biofuel industry

• Agricultural and forestry residues as the feedstock of choice in the initial stages of deployment since they are readily available and do not require additional land cultivation

• More detailed research to ensure that advanced biofuels provide economic benefits for developing countries²⁵

• Pilot and demonstration projects outside, as well as within, the OECD in order to develop supply chain concepts, assess feedstock characteristics and analyze production costs in different parts of the world

• The collection of field data on commercial, advanced biofuel production from residues in order to better understand impacts on agricultural markets and the overall economic situation in developing countries

• Improved data accuracy on sustainably available land in developing countries in order to determine the potential for dedicated energy crops.

In order to improve the support mechanisms leading to the large-scale deployment of advanced sustainable biofuels, the following measures would be beneficial:

On the demand side

• The double counting measure: gives an administrative energy bonus and thus economic value to some biofuel production pathways (those that produce biofuels from wastes, residues, or lignocellulose); it has no budgetary impact

• Binding blend-in target: an achievable sub-target for advanced biofuels would secure a market share. It would also reduce investment risk and lower competition with well-established biofuel production pathways

• Tax incentives: could be implemented in the EU Energy Taxation Directive, which is currently under revision

• Production support/feed-in tariff: initial fixed sales prices or fixed premiums help improve the business case for the investors that are needed to build the first wave of commercial-scale projects.

On the supply side

• Feedstock collection and supply-chain incentives: in most EU countries there is no or limited experience with the large-scale collection and storage of biomass. Incentives are therefore essential to help establish agriculture and forestry biomass supply-chains and reduce feedstock uncertainty and the overall risk of advanced biofuel scale-up investments.

On the investment side

• Realistic investment support for both demonstration and first-of-a-kind commercial-scale projects, e.g., via the European Industrial Bioenergy Initiative (EIBI).

Establish Bio-CCS Value Chains in Europe

In short, because CO2 emissions resulting from biomass conversion are not rewarded in the ETS (or rather, they are regarded as neutral and therefore not accounted for), there is no incentive to abate those emissions—even where it can be done at very low additional cost. In fact, co-firing biomass in a fossil fuel power plant actually reduces the business case for CCS, if the biomass share exceeds the rate of CO2 not abated by CCS—typically 10%—because capturing the biogenic CO2 yields no reward.

Address Issues Specific to Bio-CCS Deployment

Recommendations for further research include:

• Undertake comprehensive cost assessments and life-cycle analyses (LCAs) of Bio-CCS value chains for the various technology routes

• Up-scale biomass conversion processes for improved economies of scale for CCS deployment

• Assess potentials for biogas co-firing in gas power plants; the potential for hydrogen production

• Determine the effect of the composition of biogenic CO2 on the CCS value chain in power plants (corrosion, effect on amine/ammonia solvents etc.)

• Identify any specific storage properties for biogenic CO2, i.e., biogenic impurities in the CO2 stream

• Study algal (macro/micro) biomass feedstock in terms of fuel properties and CO2 capture

• Match biomass sources with CO2 sinks per Member State and/or EU-wide; any specific issues regarding CO2 clustering and/or shipping (not only for Bio-CCS, but particularly relevant for small-scale CCS).

• Establish an EU Roadmap for Bio-CCS deployment towards 2050.

Build on Public Support for Bio-CCS

While the issue of public awareness has not been specifically addressed by the Joint Taskforce Bio-CCS, a recent study²⁶ indicates that there is a difference in perception and attitude of the general public towards Bio-CCS projects compared to fossil CCS projects—notably a decrease in the so-called NIMBY [Not in My Backyard] effect. The Taskforce therefore recommends that further research be undertaken on this important issue.

References

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. 2007. www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

Hansen

. Scientific reticence, sea level rise. 2007. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024002/fulltext/

Pfeffer

W.T.

Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise. 2008. www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.93.html

theguardian. Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from air. 2011. http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/05/global-warming-suck-greenhouse-gases?cat=environment&type=article

International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook. 2011. www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2011sum.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. 2011. www.srren.org

United Nationals Industrial Development Organization. Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage in Industrial Applications. 2011. www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/News/2011/CCS_Industry_Roadmap_WEB.pdf

European Commisision. Energy Roadmap 2050. 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com_2011_8852_en.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. 2011. http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch02.pdf

10.

International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap Bioenergy for Heat and Power. 2012. www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/bioenergy.pdf

11.

Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2009/28/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009. 2009. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=Oj:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en.pdf

12.

European Biomass Association. AEBIOM Statistical Report 2011. www.aebiom.org/?p=3336#more-3336

13.

Ecofys. Global potential of biomass combined with carbon capture and storage. www.ecofys.com/en/project/biomass-combined-with-ccs-bio-ccs/

14.

International Energy Agency. CCS Industrial Applications. www.iea.org/roadmaps/ccs_industrial_applications.asp

15.

Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium. http://sequestration.org

16.

New York Times Ethanol Carbon Sequestration Plant Holds Lessons for Coal. 2011. www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/09/12/12climatewire-ethanol-carbon-sequestration-plant-holds-les-18588.html?pagewanted=all

17.

ADM. ADM Receives $99.2 Million U.S. Department Of Energy Grant For Second Carbon Sequestration Project. 2010. http://origin.adm.com/enUS/news/_layouts/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?ID=247

18.

Zero Emissions Platform. The Costs of CO₂ Capture. 2011. www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/166-zep-cost-report-capture.html

19.

Zero Emissions Platform. The Costs of CO₂ Transport. 2011. www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/167-zep-cost-report-transport.html

20.

Zero Emissions Platform. The Costs of CO₂ Storage. 2011. www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/168-zep-cost-report-storage.html

21.

Zero Emissions Platform. The Costs of CO₂ Capture, Transport, and Storage. 2011. www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/165-zep-cost-report-summary.html

22.

Office Journal of the European Union. Directive 2009/31/ec of the european parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. 2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0114:0135:en.pdf

23.

Zero Emissions Platform. Summary report. 2011. www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/165-zep-cost-report-summary.html

24.

International Energy Agency. Sustainable Production of Second-Generation Biofuels. 2008. www.iea.org/papers/2008/2nd_Biofuel_Gen.pdf

25.

European Biofuels Technology Platform. Sustainable Production of Second Generation Biofuels - Potential and perspectives in major economies and developing countries. 2010. www.biofuelstp.eu/viewreport.php?viewid=81

26.

Wallquist

. Public acceptance of CCS system elements: A conjoint measurement. 2012. www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S1750583611002180